[blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Tim West-Meads]

Nigel wrote:
> 
> L12C3 may be a player's nightmare but it is a director's wet dream, 
> so BLMLers leap to its defence.

On about 260 days a year I'm a "player", on maybe 8 days I'm a TD.
I assure you the 260 days dominate the 8 when determining what I "like".

I really don't understand your dislike of L12c3 or argument that it makes
players less likely to call the TD.

A typical L12c3 application would be where a pair in 4S makes 11 tricks
but there was some minor MI which might (with about a 1/6 to 1/5 chance
have led to 12 tricks.  The L12c2 ruling is NOS +450/OS-480.
The L12c3 ruling for NOS would be 25% of 480 + 75% of 450.  That gives
them *more* incentive to seek a ruling - not less.  The OS get a better
score too but in this sort of MI cases (they forget to reveal some
secondary inference) there is seldom any consideration of deliberate
concealment.  In rare instances where one considers the lack of
disclosure wilful one can penalise the OS by a top or so as an incentive.

> IMO, the committee did not simply "reinterpret an old law". They 
> invented a completely new one.

Your opinion is incorrect.  All the AC did was say that they didn't need
to meet in order to condone a recommended L12c3 ruling accepted by all
the players at the table.
 
> [A] L12C3 only empowered *committees* to adjust scores to  "achieve 
> equity". 



> [C] The new law *required* the chief director to comply. Seemingly, 
> had he been unwilling, then he would have had to undergo compulsory 
> brainwashing. Weird! Luckily, a typical director would need no 
> persuasion.

Otherwise the TD (every time he thinks an equity ruling is needed) has to
give an L12c2 ruling he believes to be unfair and refer the matter to an
AC.  Sure, most TDs are grateful that they avoid the hassle of convening,
briefing, and administering an AC in such circumstances.

> 
> [D] For previous laws, the criterion for most rulings is "balance 
> of probability". Under their new law, the committee backed the 
> judgement of the chief director to the extent that they promised 
> not alter his rulings unless the appellants could prove their case 
> "beyond reasonable doubt". 

They did no such thing.  If a contestant believed that a L12c3 ruling was
inappropriate (ie that L12c2 would suffice) then that issue would be
considered on a "balance of probability basis" (just as any other would
be).

The advice on appealing was that if a pair believed that L12c3 should be
used *but* that the percentages assigned by the TD were inappropriate
there should bear in mind that the TD had consulted widely amongst their
peers in coming to his decision and that there was thus a risk of an
appeal being deemed "without merit" if they failed to produce some
evidence (not proof) as to why different percentages should be used.

> IMO Tim deludes himself into thinking that the new law has no legal 
> impact. He believes that the fall in appeals is because players are 
> "grateful for easier lives" and "happy with the rulings". 

I believe that because the friends (whom I know to be law-abiding players)
I have who play in top level WBFLC competitions tell me that the quality
of both TDs and decisions in such competitions is much better than it
used to be.  

> Admittedly, to some extent, Tim is right...
> (1) *directors and law-breakers have easier lives* and

Directors might (they have fewer appeals to organise but OTOH they often
need to put a little more work into their initial rulings).
They won't win many popularity polls because a L12c3 ruling is something
for which they must take a level of personal responsibility that L12c2
rulings somewhat allow them to avoid.

Law-breakers have slightly harder lives - there's more incentive for NOS
to call the TD in a marginal cases.


> (2) *directors and law-breakers are happy with the rulings* but

Directors are giving what they believe to be "fairer" rulings - why
should they not be happier?  I'm not convinced that law-breakers are ever
"happy" with any adverse ruling.  Certainly where the TD deems a
additional penalty desirable they never seem happy.

> (3) *law-abiding players are often denied adequate redress* and now

I haven't seen any examples of this.  By which I mean an example of where
the redress given under L12c3 is inadequate compared to that which would
have been given under L12c2 on the basis of similar judgements regarding
the likely outcomes.  (Obviously I have seen some rulings where an, IMO
bad, judgement would have led to an inadequate adjustment under either
law.)

> (4) *victims of infractions cannot even resort to a fair appeal*

They can, they do, and there are plenty of times where it has happened.
 
> Thus the new law that the appeal committee invented has wider 

It was (still) a new procedure not a new law.  If you wish you might also
refer to it as a new regulation.  The WBF (and an AC sub-committee for a
WBF tournament) both have an absolute right to develop/implement
regulations for the tournaments they promote.
The only proviso is that those regulations not be "in conflict with the
laws".  Since the WBFLC has deemed the WBFAC reg not to be in conflict
that isn't an issue.

> application and more teeth than any previous law. Its main effect 
> is to reward law-breakers and reduce appeals.

There are fewer appeals now.  That's partly because the law-abiding
players actually prefer (and readily relate to) good quality L12c3
rulings and partly because the quality of the normal L12c2 rulings has
also improved.  (Albeit the occasional shocker still gets made).

I have spoken to several players (at various representative levels) about
the issue and none of them share your concerns about what the WBF have
done.

Tim